MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409580796 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-084

Optimization of Digital Media Content Generation and Communication Effect Combined with Deep Learning Technology

2025· article· en· W4409580796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W. Ji, Ming Jin, Yixin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDeep learningMultimediaArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combination of deep learning and digital media technology provides great scope for content creation. The article uses Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) in deep learning for content generation. Based on the three major forms of digital media content (image, audio, and video), image, audio, and video are generated by U-Net_GAN model, MAS-GAN model, and SSFLVGAN model, respectively, to construct a digital media content generation model based on generative adversarial networks. Subsequently, the model is validated for performance and the generated images, audio and video are evaluated for effectiveness. By studying the shortcomings of digital media content generation, we propose suggestions to improve its dissemination effect. The U-Net_GAN model outperforms other image generation models in all the indexes of generating images. The performance of speech generation and enhancement of MAS-GAN is much better than other audio generation and enhancement models. The average score of HDR video generated by SSFLVGAN is 4.20, and the average DMOS score is 5.97. The average DMOS score of SSFLVGAN is 5.97. DMOS score is 5.97, which are both 0.16 points higher than the traditional scheme. SSFLVGAN and the traditional scheme are comparable in terms of the picture impact of the generated video. The picture detail effect of the SSFLVGAN generated video is much better than the traditional scheme.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207